On the one hand, it's kind of unprofessional, on the other, it's written for Esquire, so maybe that's what they were going for? From the article:

"The symmetry of her face, up close, is genuinely shocking. The lip on the left curves exactly the same way as the lip on the right. The eyes match exactly. The brow is in perfect balance, like a problem of logic, like a visual labyrinth. It's not really even that beautiful. It's closer to the sublime, a force of nature, the patterns of waves crisscrossing a lake, snow avalanching down the side of a mountain, an elaborately camouflaged butterfly. What she is is flawless. There is absolutely nothing wrong with her."

My wife has an acquaintance who is actually drop dead model beautiful (and in fact used to be one). When you meet someone like that in person, it can actually be shocking (as it was for me the first time I met her). The mind struggles with the cognitive dissonance of being confronted with a reality that is too perfect to be real (and whatever else she is, Megan Fox is beautiful). So I could see how the interviewer could become enchanted and write all that crap.

All that being said, that's what an editor is for, to reign in the effusive lack of judgement that is that article. So, I can only imagine that it's all intentional.